Iran. Tick, tick …

Today’s editorial: The latest UN sanctions are less than they should be, and those who oppose stronger measures should consider the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran.

________________

There are more unsettling thoughts to dwell upon than the ongoing difficulty of the United States and its allies trying to stop Iran from producing nuclear fuel. They begin, of course, with imagining Iran as an outright nuclear power.

Tehran’s increasingly evident determination to develop a nuclear weapon is not easily undermined. So what President Obama hails, in a factual if rather misleading way, as the United Nations Security Council’s toughest sanctions yet against Iran, is more a reminder of diplomacy’s limits than its power.

Here’s the U.N., in its fourth such attempt to end Iran’s enrichment of nuclear fuel, and its penalties still don’t go much beyond attempting to obstruct the nuclear industry, putting an embargo on heavy weapons sales and pushing for ship inspections.

Where, then, are sanctions on Iran’s commerce — on its banks and insurance companies, say, or a boycott on oil imports from Tehran?

That’s the sort of aggressive diplomacy that just might send the right message to Iran. Yet it’s on the scrap pile of diplomatic overtures, thanks to the reticence of countries that could come to regret it. The sanctions the United States has to settle for could only muster 12 of 15 votes on the Security Council. Turkey and Brazil opposed them, while Lebanon abstained.

Yes, China and Russia voted for the sanctions, but that seems to say as much about what the sanctions didn’t include as it does about what they did. A country as powerful yet as dependent on Mideast oil as China can’t resist the temptation to see to it that the sanctions don’t impede oil sales. Yet it ought to consider this scenario. How would an Israeli attack on Iran, a very likely possibility unless Tehran’s nuclear ambitions are halted, affect oil production?

The war of words grows more intense in the midst of all this diplomatic uncertainty. Here’s Sen. John McCain, trying to encourage Iranians to remove Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, albeit peacefully, as if he could be overthrown that way.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile, is more politic in what, in the failure of diplomacy, could lead to a confrontation.

“Our goal is not to punish Iran; our goal is not to sanction Iran,” she says. “Our goal is to end any doubts or questions about the purpose of Iran’s nuclear program, and to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.”

Noble and sensible goals. But can they be achieved?

Iran is a dangerous country, and the rest of the world needs to confront that unpleasant reality. Toughen those sanctions and toughen them now.